On Jun 29, 2007, at 12:41 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:
>
> I note some objections to my proposal to publish the
> differences document.
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/trdiff/results
>
> First, a "No, disagree" response says
>
> "Rationale based on design principles, for each and every
> dropped/added/changed element and attribute should be supplied."
>
> Well, perhaps it should. By all means, please do provide it.
> But until you do, to argue against publication because it hasn't been
> provided isn't helpful. Karl, Anne, you might add a note
> in the status section that more rationale is under discussion.
Dan, I think this response is way too dismissive of the concerns
raised in this and other objections. Basically, most of us on the WG
are in the dark. This document does not reflect the work of this WG.
So those of us asking for the "differences note" to reflect the
rationale are asking because we don't know. We can't possibly offer
proposed changes to the text if we don't have a clue. And the fact
that we don't have a clue speaks volumes about how this document does
not at all reflect the work of the WG.
And as I've said before, if it's only to meet the heartbeat
requirement than it makes so much more sense to publish the "design
principles" since that's the best place to start and I think many of
us on the WG would find stronger agreement with that document in its
current state..
> I am quite sympathetic to...
>
> "In order to apply consistent decision making throughout the
> specification, it is critical to come to consensus on the design
> principles."
>
> By all means, please contribute to the design principles text(s).
> But I don't understand this as an argument against publishing
> the difference document.
>
> Another response goes further and formally objects:
>
> "it is unconscionable that the HTML WG should release a vastly
> different
> draft in toto without first outlining and cementing our design
> principles."
>
> Various people have outlined design principles, and I am doing
> what I can to cement them (with a W3C staff position* still
> not filled and my co-chair on holiday). You're welcome to help.
> But objecting to publication of the differences document isn't
> helpful.
Again, I think proposing to publish a "differences" document when the
WG has not even reviewed the draft of the spec (which we're scheduled
to do over the next few weeks) is putting the cart way before the horse.
> Another objection goes a little further...
>
> "As per the Formal Objection Guidelines[2]I propose that the "HTML 5
> differences from HTML 4" document be modified to clearly indicate the
> rationales for dropping the attributes in question and their status as
> being open issues, both in "1.1. Open Issues" and in "3.6. Dropped
> Attributes" section."
>
> But I don't see any suggested text for the proposed rationale.
We WG members are in the dark about the rationale, ,which is further
evidence that we're trying to publish a document to meet the
heartbeat requirement when the proposed document does not represent
the work of this WG. That's like hooking the heart monitor up to the
neighboring patient to a another patient and saying look: this
patient has a healthy heart. Well the first thing I'd ask is for you
to actually connect the heart monitor to the patient we're talking
about. But you can't respond with: " but this fulfills the heartbeat
monitor requirement" (if I'm not pushing the metaphor too far).
In conclusion, I don't think any of us want to turn this into some
sort of process war. And as I've said before, I'm not sure what
"sides" are being taken here (I'm probably just naive). But what
we're looking for is just a stronger sense that the chair is acting
impartially and taking the members of the WG seriously. I think
rushing to publish the "differences" document without any substantive
work by the WG only damages the prospects for HTML5. The
misunderstandings of the members of the WG will only be multiplied
significantly when the public reads this. If we can't communicate
what "dropped" means within our own WG, how can we possibly imagine
that this document will adequately communicate ideas like that to
the broader public.
I haven't yet responded to the questionnaire, but I expect to include
much of these sentiments in my response. My hope is that even those
advocating for this rushed publication will see that it will only
create confusion about HTML5. First impressions are important.
Take care,
Rob